christianityfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Evolution
Baptizing the article If we are to baptize (ie, Christianize) this article, we would need to state the official position of each denomination that has an official position. I imagine that most, if not all, would embrace some form of creationism. However, this ranges all the way from Young Earth Creationism (which denies the scientific consensus on Darwinism) to Theistic Evolution (which accepts the scientific consensus but also affirms that God is the creator of the universe). There is a whole series on creationism at Wikipedia that should be considered. An odd theory is gap creationism: it reinterprets Genesis 1 as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Thirteen billion years later, the earth was void and without form." There is also the whole controversy about Intelligent Design, and whether it is science or a form of natural theology. It should be noted that when Erasmus Darwin was talking about a "first cause," he was using a philosphical description of God. Archola 16:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :Hey, whats all this about denying science? -____-. There's plenty of dating methods that agree with a YAC timetable....and alot that don't, but come on, the fact that some do is still useful. Homestarmy 16:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC) ::Name one. There's a difference between believing the Bible and believing that absolutely everything in the Bible is completely literal (four corners of the earth for example). God does not lie to us, neither through the Bible nor His creation.57.66.65.3 14:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I clarified my point. As someone once said, there is data and there is analysis. Fossils are fact. Genetic drift has been shown, at least in the case of microevolution (Poodles are very different than German Shepherds!) Darwinian macroevolution is theory. Theory is considered firmer than hypothesis, but I'm not sure if Darwinian evolution is falsifiable. Maybe it is, but hypothetically speaking, what would falsify Darwinian evolution? Archola 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC) :Darwinian evolution, also known as the theory of evolution by natural selection is certainly falsifiable. An example I can think of from the top of my head would be a monkey giving birth to a human. Another example would be a lack of genetic drift. Rabbits in the precambrian. Inherited conditions (e.g. a person has a leg chopped off in an accident and they give birth to children born as amputees). A genuine irreducibly complex entity (organism, organ, etc.).57.66.65.3 14:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Moved from Article The following section has been moved from the article to the talk page. It isn't encylopdia content rather a discussion about content.57.66.65.3 14:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Without the context of the church's acknowladgement, it is difficult to know whether they are acknowledging the whole theory of evolution, or microevolution, which is quite different than human's coming from monkey ancestor things. I believe that the Roman Catholic Church accepts Theistic evolution as the most reasonable approach, but this will need to be checked. Ergo. The definition of "evolution" here is crucial, as simple microevolution (I.E. breeds of dogs) does not represent a change in kind of animal, whereas compleate evolutionary theory speculates that everything started from a primordial goo, and thusly conflicts directly with the Bible. We should keep this to the talk page: there are many different kinds of creationism.